.

State Governments Preparing ‘Quarantine Facilities’ For Americans Unable To Isolate At Home

The Washington Department of Health is advertising job opportunities for employees to work in quarantine and isolation facilities that will be used to house Americans who are unable to quarantine at home, prompting fears that the program could eventually be used to forcibly detain people.

Ethan Miller via Getty Images

Titled ‘Isolation & Quarantine Team Consultants’ – the job offers “continuous” employment with a salary of up to $4286 dollars a month.

The facility is located “within a motel in Lewis County” and employees will be tasked with providing for COVID infectees “transportation to and from the facility in vans that have been altered to separate air flow to protect the driver.”

“Team members provide for all aspects of the guest’s stay to include providing laundry services, delivering hygiene products, delivering ready-made foods or microwaveable foods to the guests,” states the job description.

“People who test positive for COVID-19 or who are exposed to someone who tests positive are asked to isolate or quarantine (I & Q) away from other people for 10 to 14 days in order to reduce risk of transmitting the virus to others,” states the Washington Department of Health website.

“Most people are able to isolate or quarantine in their own homes. In Washington State, providing for I & Q is the responsibility of local jurisdictions.”

“The state Isolation and Quarantine facility was created for individuals who are not Washington residents but are traveling in our state and test positive for COVID-19 or who have been exposed to someone who tests positive and do not have a residence or other location in which to spend their 10-14 day isolation or quarantine period.”

The advertisement for people to work in quarantine facilities follows the CDC’s publication earlier this summer of a COVID-19 planning document that suggested relocating “high-risk individuals” to “green zones” or “camps” in order to keep them away from the rest of the population.

The document is called Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings and was originally published on the CDC’s official website on July 26, 2020.

The CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to “shield” low risk people from them,” Candace Owens tweeted.

The CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to “shield” low risk people from them.

No— this is not a joke, and yes, every single person who has made a reference to 1930’s Germany is vindicated. https://t.co/II6gjGtb5e

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) August 9, 2021

The purpose of the strategy document is “to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”).”

According to the CDC, in order to achieve this, “High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”

Respondents on Twitter expressed concern that the program in Washington State will eventually be used to forcibly quarantine Americans who break COVID-19 isolation rules.

Did you know the @WADeptHealth has a job listing for “ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE team consultants”?

What the heck is this?https://t.co/S8MHHESGMy#masktyranny #vaccinemandate https://t.co/E3xEp4th27

— Freedom Foundation (Parler: @FreedomFoundation) (@FreedomFdtn) September 22, 2021

Who wants a job at the new gov’t camps? Nothing unusual here, totally normal to list a job 18 mos after it all started. The job may last a year…hmm, what is going on a yr from now? In 2022? Need a hint? Maybe it involves #ImpeachBidenHarrisPelosiNOW
https://t.co/kSsJ7FiRcD

— Mitten state woman (@havalina68) September 23, 2021

One user described the role as a “Covid Quarantine Internment Camp Counselor.”

Do you feel an overwhelming sense of entitlement?

Do you feel like Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-Maskers should all be taught a lesson?

Do you think the Government is here to help?

Well sign up today as a Covid Quarantine Internment Camp Counselor! Link👇https://t.co/m2KEFH6rIi pic.twitter.com/vVBTWgCKDC

— Dr. K PhD in Toxic Masculinity (@KessenaO) September 21, 2021

REPORT: Washington State is now staffing long-term Covid quarantine camps. – Dozens of Job listings discovered on the Indeed job board.

(source:)https://t.co/RmeC7TKioP pic.twitter.com/3MY4vhxYXl

— New Granada (@NewGranada1979) September 20, 2021

A video posted to Twitter shows a ‘COVID Quarantine Site’ being built in Eatonville, WA for purposes similar to that described in the job advertisement.

Nisqually FEMA Camp being built in Eatonville, WA pic.twitter.com/osPVLdoNBX

— Americanka🇺🇸🦅🇵🇱 (@Americanka4) September 29, 2021

As we highlighted last year, Authorities in Quebec City, Canada announced they will isolate “uncooperative” citizens in a coronavirus facility, the location of which remains a secret.

New Zealand also announced plans to placed COVID infectees and their family members in “quarantine facilities.”

Australia: Construction Of Mickleham Quarantine Camp Starts.

Back in January, German authorities also announced they would hold COVID dissidents who repeatedly fail to properly follow the rules in what was described as a ‘detention camp’ located in Dresden.

Source: Summit.news HNewsWire HNewsWire

“When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. Starting in 1934, it was illegal to criticize the Nazi government. Even telling a joke about Hitler was considered treachery. People in Nazi Germany could not say or write whatever they wanted.”

The Nazis wanted Germans to support the Nazi dictatorship and believe in Nazi ideas. To accomplish this goal, they tried to control forms of communication through censorship and propaganda. This included control of newspapers, magazines, books, art, theater, music, movies, and radio said the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Top health authority for Americans to restrict their movement suggests the political momentum in Washington is moving in the direction for more severe measures like limiting unvaccinated people’s movement within the United Sates – something which many officials and pundits have slammed as unconstitutional. Such a policy would also likely require some kind of universal ‘vaccine passport’ system as a means of showing proof and boarding a plane.

Government Inslee Setting Up Covid Concentration Camps In Washington State, Issuing Job Listings For ‘Strike Team’ Coordinators

Update: 9/22/21 A Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “isolation and quarantine” facility has been set up by Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington state. And Inslee is now looking to hire people for the “strike team” that will run it.

NOTE: A few hours before this article was published, the listing was stealth edited to remove the term “strike team,” and the original URL which contained “strike team” was auto-forwarded to a new URL. This is all an obvious attempt by Washington government employees to deceive the public and obfuscate the true nature of the positions being advertised for hire. We had already captured the original files, however, and we reveal screen shots below that show you this listing before it was stealth edited.

According to shocking new reports, Inslee’s “strike team” will function similarly to the SS from World War II. Hired hands will provide “services, security and management to the facility,” we are being told. Those who “voluntarily” check in to the facility will not be allowed to leave without first notifying the strike team.

A hiring page at the Washington “government jobs” website explains that “isolation & quarantine strike team consultants” will be paid $3,294-$4,286 monthly for their services. (See screen shots below, revealing what the page said before it was stealth edited.)

“The Isolation and Quarantine (I & Q) Section works to decompress hospitals by supporting local and state Isolation and Quarantine, Alternate Care Facility (ACF), and patient transport (EMS) by partnering with local governments (Tribes, Counties, Cities) and communities, state agencies, and other entities in the event of an emergency,” the job announcement explains.

“These positions are responsible for participating in program planning and evaluation of health service delivery products and identifying needs for personnel, supplies, and activities to support community and state response activities.”

The listing goes on to explain that the strike teams will “provide for the needs of travelers” that stay at the facility, which is located in Centralia. The strike teams will also be tasked with “responding to emergencies, training contractors and new staff, and providing guest support as needed.”

Medical Fascism Is On The Rise, Thanks To The Branch Covidians

We have been warning about this kind of thing emerging in our country for many months now, only to be called “conspiracy theorists” for even making the suggestion.

Now, it is suddenly a conspiracy fact that at least in the far-left state of Washington, the government there is establishing Chinese Virus holding facilities that supposedly will house people who choose to go there until they receive a “negative” test result for Chinese Germs.

How long will it be until checking into one of these facilities becomes a requirement, much like it already is in Canada, Australia and elsewhere? If we start that slide down the slippery slope of setting these facilities up, what will stop it from sliding right into full-blown medical fascism?

One might argue that a holding facility like the one being set up in Centralia already is full-blown medical fascism, seeing as how the place will operate much like a prison with staff on site 24 hours a day, seven days per week.

“Staff may work any or all of the three shifts and may work overtime as needed to ensure adequate staffing of the facility,” the job listing further reveals.

This is not the direction to go in if we ever hope to regain any semblance of freedom and liberty. But the Branch Covidians are cheering it all on, even after many of them protested “fascism” all last year in response to the death of George Floyd.

“If I was to set up prison camps for some future need under someone’s nose without raising suspicion, I would give it a believable purpose,” one Natural News commenter wrote.

“It’s a reach, but possibly this is for the internment of all the government traitors soon to be imprisoned for treason. It would be a darn clever plan. Probably wishful thinking though. It would be the ultimate in stealth thinking.”

Others expressed suspicion about the camps, warning that they will be used to imprison free-thinkers and those who reject the Cult of Covidism. Source: HNewsWire humansarefree

 Ethan Huff, Guest writer / Reference: GovernmentJobs.com

If you are a doctor, nurse, pharmacist or other health professional administering these COVID shots, you may be wise to reconsider your participation in this scheme. A significant problem is there’s no way to provide or obtain informed consent.

“If you’re injecting someone with these drug vaccine biologics, you are injecting them with something that you cannot possibly give them informed consent for, which means you’re violating your Hippocratic Oath, you’re violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Treaty, you’re violating the Nuremberg Code, you’re violating the Declaration of Helsinki.

It’s right across the board. It’s not even something that you can pretend doesn’t happen anymore. It’s just in everybody’s faces. And you can see that the powers that be are so stressed out right now that they are cajoling and coercing and manipulating and attacking. My friends in Italy tell me that vaccinated people are behaving in the same way that they did during World War II towards the Jews and the intellectuals.

“Anytime you are using a mandate, you are taking away the ability of the patient to give consent,” Barrows argued. “In terms of justifying it, you have to have a clear and obvious good that is achieved that outweighs the removal of patient consent.”

And let’s remember, the first people Hitler put in concentration camps weren’t the Jews. The first people were the intellectuals, because if you take the intellectuals and the doctors off the street, if you stop people from talking, you can control the people.

So, the pressure being put on the medical community in this country and in countries around the world to simply go along is nothing more than the equivalent of what Adolf Hitler and the SS did during World War II when they rounded up the intellectuals. One [thing] will lead to the next and there’s nothing about this that has been a successful campaign to control an infectious virus …

All you have to do is read the emergency use authorization documents. I’m just stunned at how many people have not read these. I’m stunned at physicians not having read these.”

On flemingmethod.com, you can find several video presentations and PDFs where Fleming goes through the emergency use authorization documents. With that data in hand, Fleming suggests asking yourself some fundamental scientific questions, such as: “Is there any statistical difference in the number of people who developed COVID-19 or died among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated?”

The answer provided in the documents is no. There is no statistical difference between the two groups. The vaccines do not statistically reduce COVID-19 infection or death thereof. There are fewer cases in absolute numbers, but statistically there’s no difference. Add to that the risk of side effects. If you take the shot, you risk developing inflammation and blood clotting.

The same people that were involved in the funding of this bioweapon are the same people that have interfered with doctors providing treatment to patients, and the same people that have been involved in the development of these vaccines. ~ Dr. Richard Fleming
As noted above, coerced administration of these shots violate any number of laws. Fleming also cites supreme court rulings in which the court ruled people have the right to choose their own health care.

“Rochin versus California had to do with an individual who was forced to undergo emetic medications to force him to vomit, to bring up things in his stomach. The Supreme Court said, ‘You do not have a right to force this medication on people.’

Griswold versus Connecticut showed that the U.S. government cannot take away the personal rights of health care in individuals unless there’s some type of compelling and substantial reason, and then it has to be put into law. It can’t come out of the executive branch.

Cruzan versus Director of Missouri Department of Health in 1990, specifically stated that patients have a right to refuse any treatment. You cannot force treatment on people. Well, this is forced treatment. This is coerced treatment.

And Doe v. Rumsfeld proved in 2004 that investigational drugs could not be forced upon people unless there is a presidential waiver or informed consent. Well, here’s the kicker on presidential waiver, which is what they’re going to go to.

Anybody who takes an oath of office — the president of the United States, senators, representatives to Congress, governors, police officers, judges, lawyers, administrative officials — cannot violate the U.S. Constitution. If they do, they’ve committed treason, by definition.

In the U.S. Constitution, it states that Treaty Law and the Constitution and statutes are the supreme law of the land. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically states that you cannot force people to take a drug; that they have to have informed consent, and that animal research has to have been done beforehand to prove it’s safe.

So, if a president, including this one, issues an order that this is a mandate and is required, then he is violating the U.S. Constitution by violating Treaty and therefore has committed treason.

It’s not only an impeachable offense, it is punishable by death because that’s [the punishment for] treason. You can’t force U.S. citizens to undergo forced experimentation.

And you can’t get around that by doing something cute like having the FDA say, ‘Whoa, well, we’ve now approved it, OK?’ Because the Supreme Court has already ruled that you cannot force people to take a treatment and the only party that can change that is the Supreme Court.”

 “We must obey God rather than men” (Act 5:29; cf. Matt. 28:18-20). When Christians disobey governing authorities, we are not rejecting authority per se, but only those unjust perversions which have crept in. The general rule of Scripture is that when human authority commands us to disobey God, then we have not only the right, but the duty, to disobey that unjust law. In these instances, the believer is submitting to God’s authority above all.

Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings

This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.^1,2  This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates.

What is the Shielding Approach¹?

The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.^1,2They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.

Current evidence indicates that older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.³In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.^4,5 For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.

In theory, shielding may serve its objective to protect high-risk populations from disease and death. However, implementation of the approach necessitates strict adherence^1,6,7, to protocol. Inadvertent introduction of the virus into a green zone may result in rapid transmission among the most vulnerable populations the approach is trying to protect.

A summary of the shielding approach described by Favas is shown in Table 1. See Guidance for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among high-risk individuals in low-resource, displaced and camp and camp-like settings ^1,2 for full details.

Table 1: Summary of the Shielding Approach¹

Level

Movement/ Interactions

Household (HH) Level:

A specific room/area designated for high-risk individuals who are physically isolated from other HH members.

Low-risk HH members should not enter the green zone. If entry is necessary, it should be done only by healthy individuals after washing hands and using face coverings. Interactions should be at a safe distance (approx. 2 meters). Minimum movement of high-risk individuals outside the green zone. Low-risk HH members continue to follow social distancing and hygiene practices outside the house.

Neighborhood Level:

A designated shelter/group of shelters (max 5-10 households), within a small camp or area where high-risk members are grouped together. Neighbors “swap” households to accommodate high-risk individuals.

Same as above

Camp/Sector Level:

A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together.

One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.

Operational Considerations

The shielding approach requires several prerequisites for effective implementation. Several are addressed, including access to healthcare and provision of food. However, there are several prerequisites which require additional considerations. Table 2 presents the prerequisites or suggestions as stated in the shielding guidance document (column 1) and CDC presents additional questions and considerations alongside these prerequisites (column 2).

Table 2: Suggested Prerequisites per the shielding documents and CDC’s Operational Considerations for Implementation

Suggested Prerequisites

*As stated in the shielding document*

Considerations as suggested by CDC

• Each green zone has a dedicated latrine/bathing facility for high-risk individuals

• The shielding approach advises against any new facility construction to establish green zones; however, few settings will have existing shelters or communal facilities with designated latrines/bathing facilities to accommodate high-risk individuals. In these settings, most latrines used by HHs are located outside the home and often shared by multiple HHs.
• If dedicated facilities are available, ensure safety measures such as proper lighting, handwashing/hygiene infrastructure, maintenance and disinfection of latrines.
• Ensure facilities can accommodate high-risk individuals with disabilities, children and separate genders at the neighborhood/camp-level.

• To minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile.  Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.

• This may be difficult to sustain, especially if the caregivers are also high risk. As caregivers may often will be family members, ensure that this strategy is socially or culturally acceptable.
• Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.

• The green zone and living areas for high-risk residents should be aligned with minimum humanitarian (SPHERE) standards.⁶

• The shielding approach requires strict adherence to infection, prevention and control (IPC) measures. They require, uninterrupted availability of soap, water, hygiene/cleaning supplies, masks or cloth face coverings, etc. for all individuals in green zones. Thus, it is necessary to ensure minimum public health standards⁶ are maintained and possibly supplemented to decrease the risk of other outbreaks outside of COVID-19. Attaining and maintaining minimum SPHERE⁶ standards is difficult in these settings for the general population.^8,9,10 Users should consider that provision of services and supplies to high risk individuals could be at the expense of low-risk residents, putting them at increased risk for other outbreaks.

• Monitor and evaluate the implementation of the shielding approach.

• Monitoring protocols will need to be developed for each type of green zone.
• Dedicated staff need to be identified to monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.

• Men and women, and individuals with tuberculosis (TB), severe immunodeficiencies, or dementia should be isolated separately

• Multiple green zones would be needed to achieve this level of separation, each requiring additional inputs/resources. Further considerations include challenges of accommodating different ethnicities, socio-cultural groups, or religions within one setting.

• Community acceptance and involvement in the design and implementation

• Even with community involvement, there may be a risk of stigmatization.^11,12 Isolation/separation from family members, loss of freedom and personal interactions may require additional psychosocial support structures/systems. See section on additional considerations below.

• High-risk minors should be accompanied into isolation by a single caregiver who will also be considered a green zone resident in terms of movements and contacts with those outside the green zone.

• Protection measures are critical to implementation. Ensure there is appropriate, adequate, and acceptable care of other minors or individuals with disabilities or mental health conditions who remain in the HH if separated from their primary caregiver.

• Green zone shelters should always be kept clean. Residents should be provided with the necessary cleaning products and materials to clean their living spaces.

• High-risk individuals will be responsible for cleaning and maintaining their own living space and facilities. This may not be feasible for persons with disabilities or decreased mobility.¹¹ Maintaining hygiene conditions in communal facilities is difficult during non-outbreak settings.^7,8,9 consequently it may be necessary to provide additional human resource support.

• Green zones should be more spacious in terms of shelter area per capita than the surrounding camp/sector, even at the cost of greater crowding of low-risk people.

• Ensure that targeting high-risk individuals does not negate mitigation measures among low-risk individuals (physical distancing in markets or water points, where feasible, etc.). Differences in space based on risk status may increase the potential risk of exposure among the rest of the low-risk residents and may be unacceptable or impracticable, considering space limitations and overcrowding in many settings.

Humanity Is Now Facing a “Perfect Storm”, and What We Have Witnessed so Far Is Just the Beginning… why is the U.S. government preparing to quarantine victims all over America?

Additional Considerations

The shielding approach outlines the general “logistics” of implementation –who, what, where, how. However, there may be additional logistical challenges to implementing these strategies as a result of unavailable commodities, transport restrictions, limited staff capacity and availability to meet the increased needs. The approach does not address the potential emotional, social/cultural, psychological impact for separated individuals nor for the households with separated members. Additional considerations to address these challenges are presented below.

Population characteristics and demographics

Consideration: The number of green zones required may be greater than anticipated, as they are based on the total number of high-risk individuals, disease categories, and the socio-demographics of the area and not just the proportion of elderly population.

Explanation: Older adults represent a small percentage of the population in many camps in humanitarian settings (approximately 3-5%^4,5), however in some humanitarian settings more than one quarter of the population may fall under high risk categories^13,14,15 based on underlying medical conditions which may increase a person’s risk for severe COVID-19 illness which include chronic kidney disease, obesity, serious heart conditions, sickle cell disease, and type 2 diabetes. Additionally, many camps and settlements host multiple nationalities which may require additional separation, for example, Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya accommodates refugees from 19 countries.¹⁶

Timeline considerations

Consideration: Plan for an extended duration of implementation time, at least 6 months.

Explanation: The shielding approach proposes that green zones be maintained until one of the following circumstances arises: (i) sufficient hospitalization capacity is established; (ii) effective vaccine or therapeutic options become widely available; or (iii) the COVID-19 epidemic affecting the population subsides.

Given the limited resources and healthcare available to populations in humanitarian settings prior to the pandemic, it is unlikely sufficient hospitalization capacity (beds, personal protective equipment, ventilators, and staff) will be achievable during widespread transmission. The national capacity in many of the countries where these settings are located (e.g., Chad, Myanmar, and Syria) is limited. Resources may become quickly overwhelmed during the peak of transmission and may not be accessible to the emergency affected populations.

Vaccine trials are underway, but with no definite timeline. Reaching the suppression phase where the epidemic subsides can take several months and cases may resurge in a second or even third wave. Herd immunity (the depletion of susceptible people) for COVID-19 has not been demonstrated to date. It is also unclear if an infected person develops immunity and the duration of potential immunity is unknown. Thus, contingency plans to account for a possibly extended operational timeline are critical.

Other logistical considerations

Consideration: Plan to identify additional resources and outline supply chain mechanisms to support green zones.

Explanation: The implementation and operation of green zones requires strong coordination among several sectors which may require substantial additional resources:  supplies and staff to maintain these spaces – shelters, IPC, water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), non-food items (NFIs) (beds, linens, dishes/utensils, water containers), psychosocial support, monitors/supervisors, caretakers/attendants, risk communication and community engagement, security, etc. Considering global reductions in commodity shortages,¹⁷ movement restrictions, border closures, and decreased trucking and flights, it is important to outline what additional resources will be needed and how they will be procured.

Protection

Consideration: Ensure safe and protective environments for all individuals, including minors and individuals who require additional care whether they are in the green zone or remain in a household after the primary caregiver or income provider has moved to the green zone.

Explanation: Separating families and disrupting and deconstructing multigenerational households may have long-term negative consequences. Shielding strategies need to consider sociocultural gender norms in order to adequately assess and address risks to individuals, particularly women and girls. ^18,19,20 Restrictive gender norms may be exacerbated by isolation strategies such as shielding. At the household level, isolating individuals and limiting their interaction, compounded with social and economic disruption has raised concerns of potential increased risk of partner violence. Households participating in house swaps or sector-wide cohorting are at particular risk for gender-based violence, harassment, abuse, and exploitation as remaining household members may not be decision-makers or responsible for households needs.^18,19,20

Social/Cultural/Religious Practices

Consideration: Plan for potential disruption of social networks.

Explanation: Community celebrations (religious holidays), bereavement (funerals) and other rites of passage are cornerstones of many societies. Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.^21,22

Mental Health

Consideration: Ensure mental health and psychosocial support*^,23 structures are in place to address increased stress and anxiety.

Explanation: Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.

Summary

The shielding approach is an ambitious undertaking, which may prove effective in preventing COVID-19 infection among high-risk populations if well managed. While the premise is based on mitigation strategies used in the United Kingdom,^24,25 there is no empirical evidence whether this approach will increase, decrease or have no effect on morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 epidemic in various humanitarian settings. This document highlights a) risks and challenges of implementing this approach, b) need for additional resources in areas with limited or reduced capacity, c) indefinite timeline, and d) possible short-term and long-term adverse consequences.

Public health not only focuses on the eradication of disease but addresses the entire spectrum of health and wellbeing. Populations displaced, due to natural disasters or war and, conflict are already fragile and have experienced increased mental, physical and/or emotional trauma. While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings. As with many community interventions meant to decrease COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, compliance and behavior change are the primary rate-limiting steps and may be driven by social and emotional factors. These changes are difficult in developed, stable settings; thus, they may be particularly challenging in humanitarian settings which bring their own set of multi-faceted challenges that need to be taken into account.

Household-level shielding seems to be the most feasible and dignified as it allows for the least disruption to family structure and lifestyle, critical components to maintaining compliance. However, it is most susceptible to the introduction of a virus due to necessary movement or interaction outside the green zone, less oversight, and often large household sizes. It may be less feasible in settings where family shelters are small and do not have multiple compartments. In humanitarian settings, small village, sector/block, or camp-level shielding may allow for greater adherence to proposed protocol, but at the expense of longer-term social impacts triggered by separation from friends and family, feelings of isolation, and stigmatization. Most importantly, accidental introduction of the virus into a green zone may result in rapid transmission and increased morbidity and mortality as observed in assisted care facilities in the US.²⁶

The shielding approach is intended to alleviate stress on the healthcare system and circumvent the negative economic consequences of long-term containment measures and lockdowns by protecting the most vulnerable.^1,24,25 Implementation of this approach will involve careful planning, additional resources, strict adherence and strong multi-sector coordination, requiring agencies to consider the potential repercussion among populations that have collectively experienced physical and psychological trauma which makes them more vulnerable to adverse psychosocial consequences.  In addition, thoughtful consideration of the potential benefit versus the social and financial cost of implementation will be needed in humanitarian settings.^*Specific psychosocial support guidance during COVID-19 as specific subject areas are beyond the scope of this document.

References

1. Favas, C. Guidance for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among high-risk individuals in camps and camp-like settings pdf icon[465 KB, 15 pages]external icon. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 31 March 2020.
2. Maysoon, D, Zandvoort K, Flasche S, et al. COVID-19 control in low-income settings and displaced populations: what can realistically be done?external icon. 2020. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness. Content source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases. Last content review 14 May 2020.
4. UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2016external icon.
5. UNHCR -Rohingya Refugee Response/Bangladesh-Joint Government of Bangladesh-UNHCR, Population Factsheet. Annex I and II. March 31,2020. Sent by email.
6. The Sphere Handbook. Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response, 2018 editionexternal icon.
7. Butler, N., Tulloch. O. Anthrologica, 2020. Social Sciences in Humanitarian Action pdf icon[275 KB, 8 pages]external icon.
8. Blum, L.S., Yemweni, A., Trinies, V. et al. Programmatic implications for promotion of handwashing behavior in an internally displaced persons camp in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. Confl Health 13, 54 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-019-0225-xexternal icon.
9. Cronin AA, Shrestha D, Cornier N, Abdalla F, Ezard N, Aramburu C. A review of water and sanitation provision in refugee camps in association with selected health and nutrition indicators–the need for integrated service provisionexternal icon. J Water Health. 2008;6(1):1-13. doi:10.2166/wh.2007.019.
10. Nyoka R, Foote AM, Woods E, et al. Sanitation practices and perceptions in Kakuma refugee camp, Kenya: Comparing the status quo with a novel service-based approachexternal icon. [published correction appears in PLoS One. 2017 Dec 19;12 (12 ):e0190129]. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0180864. Published 2017 Jul 13.
11. Working with Persons with Disabilities in Forced Displacement pdf icon[343 KB, 28 pages]external icon: Need to Know Guidance 1. 2019.
12. IFRC, UNICEF and WHO. Social Stigma Associated with COVID-19: A guide to preventing and addressing social stigma associated with COVID-19external icon.
13. Sethi S, Jonsson R, Skaff R, Tyler F. Community-Based Noncommunicable Disease Care for Syrian Refugees in Lebanonexternal icon. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2017;5(3):495-506. Published 2017 Sep 28. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00043.
14. Akik C, Ghattas H, Mesmar S, Rabkin M, El-Sadr WM, Fouad FM. Host country responses to non-communicable diseases amongst Syrian refugees: a reviewexternal icon. Confl Health. 2019;13:8. Published 2019 Mar 22. doi:10.1186/s13031-019-0192-2.
15. Rehr M, Shoaib M, Ellithy S, et al. Prevalence of non-communicable diseases and access to care among non-camp Syrian refugees in northern Jordan. Confl Healthexternal icon. 2018;12:33. Published 2018 Jul 11. doi:10.1186/s13031-018-0168-7.
16. UNHCR, Kakuma camp and Kalobeyei Settlement Visitors Guide pdf icon[5.7 MB, 10 pages]external icon.
17. World Health Organization. COVID-19 Supply Chain System, Requesting and Receiving Suppliesexternal icon.
18. UNFPA: COVID-19, A Gender Lens: Protecting sexual and reproductive health and rights and promoting gender equality.
19. IFRC, Prevention and Response to Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in COVID-19, A protection, Gender and Inclusion PGI Technical guidance note pdf icon[560 KB, 12 pages]external icon.
20. Inter-agency Standing Committee Interim guidance -Technical note. Protection from sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA) during COVID-19 response. Version 1.
21. Rashad, M, Farrell, S. April 24, 2020. Reuters, Islam’s holiest sites emptied by coronavirus crisis as Ramadhan beginsexternal icon.
22. ABP News Bureau, April 24, 2020. Pakistani Imams Overrule Lockdown for Ramadan, 253 Healthcare Workers get Infected with COVID-19external icon.
23. Operational considerations for multisectoral mental health and psychosocial support programmes during the COVID-19 pandemic, Version 1.1pdf iconexternal icon.
24. Public Health England: Guidance on Shielding and Protecting People Who are Clinically Extremely Vulnerable from COVID-19external icon.
25. Van Bunnik, Bram A.D., Morgan, L.K., et a. Segmentation and shielding of the most vulnerable members elements of an exit strategy from COVID-19external icon. University of Edinburg.
26. Michael TM, Clark S, Pogosjans S, et al. COVID-19 in a Long-Term Care Facility — King County, Washington, February 27–March 9, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020; 69:339-342. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e1

Everything is right on schedule and, now, the time is come to remove one of the final obstacles standing in the way of a New World Order: The United States Constitution – even if, over the course of many decades, it has already been greatly diminished by the B.E.A.S.T. system; or, more specifically, Bullshit Emerging As Strategic Totalitarianism (B.E.A.S.T.).

Going through tribulation, even when it is appointed by God, is not contrary to Biblical teaching. See especially 1 Peter 4:17; 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10; Hebrews 12:3-11. But even so, Revelation 9:4 suggests that the saints will be in some measure protected in the time of distress by the seal of God.

As a reminder, please do not post HNewsWire articles on Christian News Network, Now the End Begins, Shoebat, Parler, FakeBook, Reddit or Twatter social media platforms, We are not comfortable with their anti-Christian, anti-American, Nazi philosophy. ~Stevieray Hansen

StevieRay Hansen
Editor,

HNewsWire.com

[email protected]

Watchmen does not confuse truth with consensus. The Watchmen does not confuse God’s word with the word of those in power…

In police-state fashion, Big Tech took the list of accused (including this site), declared all those named guilty and promptly shadow-banned, de-platformed or de-monetized us all without coming clean about how they engineered the crushing of dissent. Now more than ever, Big Tech has exposed their hand. They engage in devious underhanded tactics to make the sinister look saintly. One of Satan’s greatest weapons happens to be deceit.

The accumulating death toll from Covid-19 can be seen minute-by-minute on cable news channels. But there’s another death toll few seem to care much about: the number of poverty-related deaths being set in motion by deliberately plunging millions of Americans into poverty and despair.

American health care, as we call it today, for all its high-tech miracles, has evolved into one of the most atrocious rackets the world has ever seen. By racket, I mean an enterprise organized explicitly to make money dishonestly.

All the official reassurances won’t be worth a bucket of warm spit. The Globalists are behind the Corona-virus. It Is a Man-Made Bio-weapon.